Her credibility is dwindling away as some actual journalists are investigating her.

Did the batphone say for everyone to emphasize 'credible' and 'serious charges'? All of the people I suspect have batphones always make sure they use those exact words when talking about Dr. Ford and her accusations. Just sayin.

If by that you mean the mud has begun to fly against her, that's to be expected. In a world where a sitting United States Senator can still publicize the alleged sexual habits of someone claiming to be a witness to multiple sexual assaults (as though the witness's sexual habits have anything to do with the credibility of her testimony), it's not surprising that partisans will attempt to distract from the lack of a full and fair FBI investigation by tossing out there anything anyone is willing to say against the chief complaining witness.

You can, however, stop wondering why women would be just a tad reluctant to air charges of this nature. --Bob

When did the mud start to fly against Kavanaugh, bob-tel? Just when he was about to be recommended by the Judicial Committee? But that's right. Democrats are always on the side of truth, justice and the American way, while the repubs are all evil. This is a world where United States Senators can use the sexual assault of a woman as a political tool and people like you believe it's a good thing. Now we're at a 'full and fair' investigation? 7 aren't enough?

Today, we gathered for Diwali, a holiday observed by Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the United States & around the world. Hundreds of millions of people have gathered with family & friends to light the Diya and to mark the beginning of a New Year.

Today, we gathered for Diwali, a holiday observed by Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the United States & around the world. Hundreds of millions of people have gathered with family & friends to light the Diya and to mark the beginning of a New Year.

He didn't mention Hindus, it is not a New Year's celebration and he's a week late?

_________________A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.Groucho Marx

Today, we gathered for Diwali, a holiday observed by Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the United States & around the world. Hundreds of millions of people have gathered with family & friends to light the Diya and to mark the beginning of a New Year.

He didn't mention Hindus

Bingo. He omitted a billion worshipers including many who support him.

Estonut wrote:

it is not a New Year's celebration and he's a week late?

I didn't know this, but Wikipedia says Diwali is part of the Hindu New Year. And official White House celebrations are often not on the actual day. (Hanukkah was a week early last year.)

Today, we gathered for Diwali, a holiday observed by Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains throughout the United States & around the world. Hundreds of millions of people have gathered with family & friends to light the Diya and to mark the beginning of a New Year.

Pres. Trump deleted this tweet and posted a corrected one. It still leaves out Hindus.

This sounds like something from a bad Saturday Night Live sketch, but it's true. Donald Trump is now accusing voters in Florida of wearing disguises so they can vote multiple times. According to Trump:

Quote:

“When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It’s really a disgrace what’s going on.”

Not even Fox News could come up with something so, in the words of Flock, "bat phone." Needless to say, Trump offers no proof of his claim other than his sterling character and reputation for telling the truth.

WASHINGTON — President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. It took on additional significance in recent weeks when Mr. McGahn left the White House and Mr. Trump appointed a relatively inexperienced political loyalist, Matthew G. Whitaker, as the acting attorney general.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump read Mr. McGahn’s memo or whether he pursued the prosecutions further. But the president has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, according to two people who have spoken to Mr. Trump about the issue. He has also repeatedly expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton, calling him weak, one of the people said.

A White House spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment on the president’s criticism of Mr. Wray, whom he appointed last year after firing Mr. Comey.

“Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president,” said Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck. “Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, that the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”

It is not clear which accusations Mr. Trump wanted prosecutors to pursue. He has accused Mr. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Mr. Comey wrote about his interactions with the president. The document contained no classified information.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Mr. Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation. Law enforcement officials declined their requests. Mr. Comey is a witness against the president in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Mr. Trump has grown frustrated with Mr. Wray for what the president sees as his failure to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s role in the Obama administration’s decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency to buy a uranium mining company. Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of corruption. But no evidence has emerged that those donations influenced the American approval of the deal.

Mr. Trump repeatedly pressed Justice Department officials about the status of Clinton-related investigations, including Mr. Whitaker when he was the chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations. CNN first reported those discussions.

In his conversation with Mr. McGahn, the president asked what stopped him from ordering the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton, the two people familiar with the conversation said. He did have the authority to ask the Justice Department to investigate, Mr. McGahn said, but warned that making such a request could create a series of problems.

Mr. McGahn promised to write a memo outlining the president’s authorities. In the days that followed, lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a several-page document in which they strongly cautioned Mr. Trump against asking the Justice Department to investigate anyone.

The lawyers laid out a series of consequences. For starters, Justice Department lawyers could refuse to follow Mr. Trump’s orders even before an investigation began, setting off another political firestorm.

If charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. And Congress, they added, could investigate the president’s role in a prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately, the lawyers warned, Mr. Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power.

Mr. Trump’s frustrations about Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton were a recurring refrain, a former White House official said. “Why aren’t they going after” them?, the president would ask of Justice Department officials.

For decades, White House aides have routinely sought to shield presidents from decisions related to criminal cases or even from talking about them publicly. Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law.

Perhaps more than any president since Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump has been accused of trying to exploit his authority over law enforcement. Witnesses have told the special counsel’s investigators about how Mr. Trump tried to end an investigation into an aide, install loyalists to oversee the inquiry into his campaign and fire Mr. Mueller.

In addition, Mr. Trump has attacked the integrity of Justice Department officials, claiming they are on a “witch hunt” to bring him down.

More significant, Mr. Mueller is investigating whether the president tried to impede his investigation into whether any Trump associates conspired with Russia’s campaign to sow discord among the American electorate during the 2016 presidential race.Mr. Trump stoked his enmity for Mrs. Clinton during the campaign, suggesting during a presidential debate that he would prosecute her if he was elected president. “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” Mr. Trump said.

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton replied.

“Because you would be in jail,” Mr. Trump shot back.

During the presidential race, Mr. Whitaker, a former United States attorney, also said he would have indicted Mrs. Clinton, contradicting Mr. Comey’s highly unusual public announcement that he would recommend the Justice Department not charge her over her handling of classified information while secretary of state.

“When the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted,” Mr. Whitaker wrote in an op-ed in USA Today in July 2016.

Two weeks after his surprise victory, Mr. Trump backed off. “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”

Nonetheless, he revisited the idea both publicly and privately after taking office. Some of his more vocal supporters stirred his anger, including the Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro, who has railed repeatedly on her weekly show that the president is being ill served by the Justice Department.

Ms. Pirro told Mr. Trump in the Oval Office last November that the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal, two people briefed on the discussion have said. During that meeting, the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, told Ms. Pirro she was inflaming an already vexed president, the people said.

Shortly after, Mr. Sessions wrote to lawmakers, partly at the urging of the president’s allies in the House, to inform them that federal prosecutors in Utah were examining whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton. A spokeswoman for the United States attorney for Utah declined to comment on Tuesday on the status of the investigation.

Mr. Trump once called his distance from law enforcement one of the “saddest” parts of being president.

“I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department,” he said in a radio interview a year ago. “Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier?” He added: “I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.”

I’m sure the White House will dismiss it as more fake news from the usual unreliable sources.

WASHINGTON — President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. It took on additional significance in recent weeks when Mr. McGahn left the White House and Mr. Trump appointed a relatively inexperienced political loyalist, Matthew G. Whitaker, as the acting attorney general.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump read Mr. McGahn’s memo or whether he pursued the prosecutions further. But the president has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, according to two people who have spoken to Mr. Trump about the issue. He has also repeatedly expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton, calling him weak, one of the people said.

A White House spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment on the president’s criticism of Mr. Wray, whom he appointed last year after firing Mr. Comey.

“Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president,” said Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck. “Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, that the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”

It is not clear which accusations Mr. Trump wanted prosecutors to pursue. He has accused Mr. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Mr. Comey wrote about his interactions with the president. The document contained no classified information.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Mr. Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation. Law enforcement officials declined their requests. Mr. Comey is a witness against the president in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Mr. Trump has grown frustrated with Mr. Wray for what the president sees as his failure to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s role in the Obama administration’s decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency to buy a uranium mining company. Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of corruption. But no evidence has emerged that those donations influenced the American approval of the deal.

Mr. Trump repeatedly pressed Justice Department officials about the status of Clinton-related investigations, including Mr. Whitaker when he was the chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations. CNN first reported those discussions.

In his conversation with Mr. McGahn, the president asked what stopped him from ordering the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton, the two people familiar with the conversation said. He did have the authority to ask the Justice Department to investigate, Mr. McGahn said, but warned that making such a request could create a series of problems.

Mr. McGahn promised to write a memo outlining the president’s authorities. In the days that followed, lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a several-page document in which they strongly cautioned Mr. Trump against asking the Justice Department to investigate anyone.

The lawyers laid out a series of consequences. For starters, Justice Department lawyers could refuse to follow Mr. Trump’s orders even before an investigation began, setting off another political firestorm.

If charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. And Congress, they added, could investigate the president’s role in a prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately, the lawyers warned, Mr. Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power.

Mr. Trump’s frustrations about Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton were a recurring refrain, a former White House official said. “Why aren’t they going after” them?, the president would ask of Justice Department officials.

For decades, White House aides have routinely sought to shield presidents from decisions related to criminal cases or even from talking about them publicly. Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law.

Perhaps more than any president since Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump has been accused of trying to exploit his authority over law enforcement. Witnesses have told the special counsel’s investigators about how Mr. Trump tried to end an investigation into an aide, install loyalists to oversee the inquiry into his campaign and fire Mr. Mueller.

In addition, Mr. Trump has attacked the integrity of Justice Department officials, claiming they are on a “witch hunt” to bring him down.

More significant, Mr. Mueller is investigating whether the president tried to impede his investigation into whether any Trump associates conspired with Russia’s campaign to sow discord among the American electorate during the 2016 presidential race.Mr. Trump stoked his enmity for Mrs. Clinton during the campaign, suggesting during a presidential debate that he would prosecute her if he was elected president. “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” Mr. Trump said.

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton replied.

“Because you would be in jail,” Mr. Trump shot back.

During the presidential race, Mr. Whitaker, a former United States attorney, also said he would have indicted Mrs. Clinton, contradicting Mr. Comey’s highly unusual public announcement that he would recommend the Justice Department not charge her over her handling of classified information while secretary of state.

“When the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted,” Mr. Whitaker wrote in an op-ed in USA Today in July 2016.

Two weeks after his surprise victory, Mr. Trump backed off. “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”

Nonetheless, he revisited the idea both publicly and privately after taking office. Some of his more vocal supporters stirred his anger, including the Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro, who has railed repeatedly on her weekly show that the president is being ill served by the Justice Department.

Ms. Pirro told Mr. Trump in the Oval Office last November that the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal, two people briefed on the discussion have said. During that meeting, the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, told Ms. Pirro she was inflaming an already vexed president, the people said.

Shortly after, Mr. Sessions wrote to lawmakers, partly at the urging of the president’s allies in the House, to inform them that federal prosecutors in Utah were examining whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton. A spokeswoman for the United States attorney for Utah declined to comment on Tuesday on the status of the investigation.

Mr. Trump once called his distance from law enforcement one of the “saddest” parts of being president.

“I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department,” he said in a radio interview a year ago. “Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier?” He added: “I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.”

I’m sure the White House will dismiss it as more fake news from the usual unreliable sources.

From the same sources like a "person with direct knowledge of the conversations" who have been reporting for months that "Mueller firing is imminent", "Rosenstein is out". The MSM's new catch phrase is 'without evidence'. They reported all the charges against Kavanaugh, none of which, to my knowledge, had any concrete evidence behind them. Is gossip now considered evidence by the NYT? As far as I know, none of this has happened, and trump has said on numerous occasions that he is not going to fire Mueller or Rosenstein. So, who's lying? This is all wishful speculation by a press which is as out of control as the president.

That being said, I have no problem with Clinton should being investigated as thoroughly as they are investigating trump. I'm sure with all the investigations Pelosi is going to start, they can fit that one in there.

They reported all the charges against Kavanaugh, none of which, to my knowledge, had any concrete evidence behind them.

Again, you have a problem with the meaning of the word "evidence." They had the testimony or statements (from those witnesses not allowed to testify) of three witnesses. Many rapists are in jail today based on far less evidence.

That being said, I have no problem with Clinton should being investigated as thoroughly as they are investigating trump. I'm sure with all the investigations Pelosi is going to start, they can fit that one in there.

If there’s any “there” there, the current Congress or a U.S. attorney could investigate (they’re not all Democratic hacks).

Meanwhile, it appears that the Mueller investigation is wrapping up, so soon the press will have facts to report instead of rumors.

They reported all the charges against Kavanaugh, none of which, to my knowledge, had any concrete evidence behind them.

Again, you have a problem with the meaning of the word "evidence." They had the testimony or statements (from those witnesses not allowed to testify) of three witnesses. Many rapists are in jail today based on far less evidence.

Don't worry, Flock. Mueller Indictment Day is coming soon enough.

I don't have a bat-phone. Which 3 witnesses provided concrete evidence that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Balsey-Ford or anyone else?

Not soon enough. If Mueller cannot charge trump with any crime, you will be very sad, won't you?

You switched your verbiage here. At first, you said there was no evidence. Now you say there's no concrete evidence. That's a big difference. The evidence was the testimony (or statements since the other two weren't permitted to testify) of three women alleging a pattern of behavior on Kavanaugh's part. That's evidence, and more, that is direct testimony by an eyewitness. And that's enough evidence to convict a rapist if believed by the jury. And there are a lot of men in jail on far less evidence.

If Mueller cannot charge trump with any crime, you will be very sad, won't you?

Trump himself may not be charged (the law is unclear on whether a sitting president can be indicted), but a whole lot of his buddies are going down, including Roger Stone and Trump, Jr. Nixon was never charged and see how that played out for his reputation.

You switched your verbiage here. At first, you said there was no evidence. Now you say there's no concrete evidence. That's a big difference. The evidence was the testimony (or statements since the other two weren't permitted to testify) of three women alleging a pattern of behavior on Kavanaugh's part. That's evidence, and more, that is direct testimony by an eyewitness. And that's enough evidence to convict a rapist if believed by the jury. And there are a lot of men in jail on far less evidence.

Name one person who was jailed for attempted sexual assault 35 years after it allegedly occurred using nothing but the words of 3 witnesses with no physical evidence..

If Mueller cannot charge trump with any crime, you will be very sad, won't you?

Trump himself may not be charged (the law is unclear on whether a sitting president can be indicted), but a whole lot of his buddies are going down, including Roger Stone and Trump, Jr. Nixon was never charged and see how that played out for his reputation.

I believe you are the one changing his tune. But you have so many posts already out there just salivating for Muellers report and how it would take trump down. Russian 'collusion', remember?

You switched your verbiage here. At first, you said there was no evidence. Now you say there's no concrete evidence. That's a big difference. The evidence was the testimony (or statements since the other two weren't permitted to testify) of three women alleging a pattern of behavior on Kavanaugh's part. That's evidence, and more, that is direct testimony by an eyewitness. And that's enough evidence to convict a rapist if believed by the jury. And there are a lot of men in jail on far less evidence.

Name one person who was jailed for attempted sexual assault 35 years after it allegedly occurred using nothing but the words of 3 witnesses with no physical evidence..

Okay, so we're moving the goalposts again. Statutes of limitation prevent most cases of this nature from being heard more than a few years after the assault occurs. But the Bill Cosby trial took place 14 years after the assault for which he was convicted. And you've gotten off the original claim you made that there was no evidence. There was. You just don't think the evidence was good enough.

If Mueller cannot charge trump with any crime, you will be very sad, won't you?

Trump himself may not be charged (the law is unclear on whether a sitting president can be indicted), but a whole lot of his buddies are going down, including Roger Stone and Trump, Jr. Nixon was never charged and see how that played out for his reputation.

I believe you are the one changing his tune. But you have so many posts already out there just salivating for Muellers report and how it would take trump down. Russian 'collusion', remember?

Again, there's a difference between "taking someone down" and whether the president can be indicted. Nixon was never indicted (hence the term "unindicted co-conspirator"), although the evidence of his guilt was fairly clear.

Apparently, you seem to think Trump can declare victory if a dozen or more of his advisors go to jail as long as he personally isn't indicted.

Trump himself may not be charged (the law is unclear on whether a sitting president can be indicted), but a whole lot of his buddies are going down, including Roger Stone and Trump, Jr. Nixon was never charged and see how that played out for his reputation.

I believe you are the one changing his tune. But you have so many posts already out there just salivating for Muellers report and how it would take trump down. Russian 'collusion', remember?

Again, there's a difference between "taking someone down" and whether the president can be indicted. Nixon was never indicted (hence the term "unindicted co-conspirator"), although the evidence of his guilt was fairly clear.

Apparently, you seem to think Trump can declare victory if a dozen or more of his advisors go to jail as long as he personally isn't indicted.

So that is your prediction (wish). Bookmark this. We'll see. Let's just remember, the whole premise of this investigation was that trump got help from the Russians to steal the election.